Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

Busted Flat. · 05-12-2013 12:40pm

alastair wrote: »

Ignoring the business about the troubles being a a war (debatable), there's no equivalence between the murder of the Gibraltar three / Loughall 8 and these policemen. The IRA were 'on active service' - as in preparing attempted murder at that moment. The policemen were just going about their day. On that basis, you presumably believe it would have been perfectly legitimate for the RUC to just murder every known IRA member as they went about their daily business?

What about the shoot to kill policy of the RUC.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FShoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland&ei=cmWgUo6fHoaw7Qa0soCwAg&usg=AFQjCNF04svzvVnFThRyk3ZCVWFflzYlzg

On 24 May 1984 an inquiry under Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker of the Greater Manchester Police was opened into three specific cases where it was alleged that a specially trained undercover RUC team known as the "Headquarters Mobile Support Unit" had carried out a "shoot-to-kill" policy. These three cases were:
11 November 1982: The killing of three unarmed IRA members at an RUC checkpoint in Craigavon, County Armagh.[3][4]
24 November 1982: The killing, by an RUC undercover unit, of Michael Tighe and the wounding of his friend Martin McCauley at an IRA arms cache on a farm near Lurgan, County Armagh. (19 years later, McCauley was arrested in Colombia, accused by the Colombian authorities of teaching FARC guerillas in the use of explosives, in particular the "barrack buster"). [1][2][3]
12 December 1982: The killing at an RUC checkpoint in Mullacreavie, County Armagh, of two INLA members, Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll. (The intended main target, Dominic McGlinchey, was not in their car as expected.) [4].

alastair · 05-12-2013 12:48pm

Busted Flat. wrote: »

What about the shoot to kill policy of the RUC.

On 24 May 1984 an inquiry under Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker of the Greater Manchester Police was opened into three specific cases where it was alleged that a specially trained undercover RUC team known as the "Headquarters Mobile Support Unit" had carried out a "shoot-to-kill" policy.

Just to be clear - that's the alleged shoot-to-kill policy with one small group within the RUC. A group which the Stalker inquiry claimed paid scant regard to anyone outside their own group. If you're going to pretend that the RUC had a policy of murdering all known IRA members, you'll need to provide something a bit more convincing.

Happyman42 · 05-12-2013 12:48pm

Godge wrote: »

Just answer one question, were Gerry Adams and Padraic MacLochlainn correct to say what they said?

I have to say honestly that I respect Adams for what he said, it may have come across as callous and cold but it was honest and in context. (I didn't hear PmcL btw)
These men drove into Dundalk and parked outside and in front of the Garda station in a car that was well known to belong to Buchanan. That was a shocking disregard for personal safety imo.
Whatever you and others think about it being a war or not a war, the fact is, the IRA saw themselves at war. Stating that people at war did their duty is no biggie really, just a statement of fact.

Godge · 05-12-2013 12:52pm

Busted Flat. wrote: »

What about the shoot to kill policy of the RUC.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FShoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland&ei=cmWgUo6fHoaw7Qa0soCwAg&usg=AFQjCNF04svzvVnFThRyk3ZCVWFflzYlzg

On 24 May 1984 an inquiry under Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker of the Greater Manchester Police was opened into three specific cases where it was alleged that a specially trained undercover RUC team known as the "Headquarters Mobile Support Unit" had carried out a "shoot-to-kill" policy. These three cases were:
11 November 1982: The killing of three unarmed IRA members at an RUC checkpoint in Craigavon, County Armagh.[3][4]
24 November 1982: The killing, by an RUC undercover unit, of Michael Tighe and the wounding of his friend Martin McCauley at an IRA arms cache on a farm near Lurgan, County Armagh. (19 years later, McCauley was arrested in Colombia, accused by the Colombian authorities of teaching FARC guerillas in the use of explosives, in particular the "barrack buster"). [1][2][3]
12 December 1982: The killing at an RUC checkpoint in Mullacreavie, County Armagh, of two INLA members, Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll. (The intended main target, Dominic McGlinchey, was not in their car as expected.) [4].

Firstly, that inquiry report was never published so we don't know what was in it.
Secondly, the Smithwick Inquiry has found that there were bad apples in the gardai and you would assume that there are bad apples in every police force. Bad apples do not make policy.
Thirdly, if you argue that RUC collusion and shoot-to-kill policy makes them a legitimate target of the IRA, then that logic suggests that the Gardai are legitimate targets of the RUC because of the Smithwick Inquiry, a ridiculous notion because however flawed the RUC were as a police force, they were never a terrorist organisation.

alastair · 05-12-2013 12:55pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stating that people at war did their duty is no biggie really, just a statement of fact.

No doubt the Shankill butchers' victims were equally culpable in their murders, by not ensuring their security was that bit better. Because they would have considered themselves at war too. Just a statement of fact. :rolleyes:

Godge · 05-12-2013 12:55pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have to say honestly that I respect Adams for what he said, it may have come across as callous and cold but it was honest and in context. (I didn't hear PmcL btw)
These men drove into Dundalk and parked outside and in front of the Garda station in a car that was well known to belong to Buchanan. That was a shocking disregard for personal safety imo.
Whatever you and others think about it being a war or not a war, the fact is, the IRA saw themselves at war. Stating that people at war did their duty is no biggie really, just a statement of fact.

As I posted earlier, just reflect carefully on what has been said by the posters on here and by the likes of Adams and MacLochlainn. The absence of remorse, the justifications for cold-blooded murder, the unapologetic defence of the indefensible are chilling.

I won't post on this thread again because what I read sickens me.

FTA69 · 05-12-2013 1:03pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So British collusion is wrong, but Irish collusion is to be commended?

No Fred. That's not what I said at all. I said that a couple of guards helping the IRA at a local level in one specific case is not equivalent to a systematic campaign of government collusion with death squads leading to the deaths of hundreds of people.

alastair · 05-12-2013 1:04pm

FTA69 wrote: »

No Fred. That's not what I said at all. I said that a couple of guards helping the IRA at a local level in one specific case is not equivalent to a systematic campaign of government collusion with death squads leading to the deaths of hundreds of people.

Good thing that didn't actually happen then, isn't it?

Happyman42 · 05-12-2013 1:06pm

alastair wrote: »

No doubt the Shankill butchers' victims were equally culpable in their murders, by not ensuring their security was that bit better. Because they would have considered themselves at war too. Just a statement of fact. :rolleyes:

They where involved in a sectarian war, which is wrong.
The RUC where stated targets of the IRA - fact, whether you agree with that status/motive or not, that is the context of the time. Both men knew they where targets, Breen was aware off and expressed doubts about his security that very morning, Buchanan's belief that driving his own un-escorted vehicle was somehow safer was a mistake.
A 'laisse faire regard for safety' sums up exactly what the actual attitude was on both the Garda and RUC side.

alastair · 05-12-2013 1:10pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where involved in a sectarian war, which is wrong.

So it's now down to, not a belief that you're engaged in a war, but that a belief that you're engaged in the 'right kind of war'? I'd hazard a guess that Lenny Murphy et al were quite confident that their war was justified. And the nationalist community of west Belfast couldn't have been blind to the risks inherent in the Shankill butchers campaign. So how come no-one blames the victims there?

Nodin · 05-12-2013 1:14pm

alastair wrote: »

Ignoring the business about the troubles being a a war (debatable), there's no equivalence between the murder of the Gibraltar three / Loughall 8 and these policemen. The IRA were 'on active service' - as in preparing attempted murder at that moment. The policemen were just going about their day. On that basis, you presumably believe it would have been perfectly legitimate for the RUC to just murder every known IRA member as they went about their daily business?

It was a war, not a cake sale. The RUC were on one side of it.

Mr.Micro · 05-12-2013 1:15pm

Godge wrote: »

As I posted earlier, just reflect carefully on what has been said by the posters on here and by the likes of Adams and MacLochlainn. The absence of remorse, the justifications for cold-blooded murder, the unapologetic defence of the indefensible are chilling.

I won't post on this thread again because what I read sickens me.

Imagine the likes of them in power in Government and making policy? The people of Ireland should shiver at the prospect.

Happyman42 · 05-12-2013 1:18pm

alastair wrote: »

So it's now down to, not a belief that you're engaged in a war, but that a belief that you're engaged in the 'right kind of war'? I'd hazard a guess that Lenny Murphy et al were quite confident that their war was justified. And the nationalist community of west Belfast couldn't have been blind to the risks inherent in the Shankill butchers campaign. So how come no-one blames the victims there?

In Alan Shatter's (who might be better employed finding out and criticising/prosecuting those who colluded in covering up what went on in Dundalk GS) pious world I have no doubt that he selectively(for political point scoring purposes) believes that Adams was attempting to 'blame' the RUC officers for their own deaths. Adams was merely stating a fact, a cold hard one, but a fact nonetheless.
Like so many others, those men are dead because there was a conflict/war etc in bloody progress at the time.

FTA69 · 05-12-2013 1:19pm

alastair wrote: »

Good thing that didn't actually happen then, isn't it?

I'll quote John Stevens;

4.9 My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved.[14]

There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson.[12]

Brian Nelson, the man whom he is referring to, was a British agent who was the UDA's Director of Intelligence. In effect, Nelson was the man who decided who would be targeted and would contribute in arranging for those killings to take place. Nelson's handlers were the Force Research Unit, who answered directly to the British Ministry of Defence. On one occasion they actually took a suitcase of information from Nelson and returned it to him colour coded based on who should be a priority target.

Funnily enough, most of the report was prevented from being published by the British government.

You may think that collusion was simply Trevor the cop giving Sammy the UVF man a loan of a rifle; nobody who's remotely familiar with the process will think that however.

walshb · 05-12-2013 2:13pm

TOMASJ wrote: »

It sure is, and has been happening for near 30 years in the North

Absolutely. It's horrifying to think that those two men were set up to be executed.

Gerry Adams' comments, although a bit raw and harsh, were spot on.

alastair · 05-12-2013 3:06pm

FTA69 wrote: »

I'll quote John Stevens;

Brian Nelson, the man whom he is referring to, was a British agent who was the UDA's Director of Intelligence. In effect, Nelson was the man who decided who would be targeted and would contribute in arranging for those killings to take place. Nelson's handlers were the Force Research Unit, who answered directly to the British Ministry of Defence. On one occasion they actually took a suitcase of information from Nelson and returned it to him colour coded based on who should be a priority target.

Funnily enough, most of the report was prevented from being published by the British government.

You may think that collusion was simply Trevor the cop giving Sammy the UVF man a loan of a rifle; nobody who's remotely familiar with the process will think that however.

Nothing to suggest any systemic campaign of government collusion resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people there though. The MoD had their plants in the IRA too, lets not forget.

FTA69 · 05-12-2013 3:09pm

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to suggest any systemic campaign of government collusion resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people there though. The MoD had their plants in the IRA too, lets not forget.

You had a variety of government organisations, including the bloody Ministry of Defence who were not only running agents in Loyalism, but also active in setting targets. And that doesn't equate to state collusion?

If you can't face up to the reality that the British state were in the wrong here (for whatever reason) then that's your opinion, but please spare me the nonsense and wrangling please.

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2013 3:18pm

FTA69 wrote: »

I'll quote John Stevens;

Brian Nelson, the man whom he is referring to, was a British agent who was the UDA's Director of Intelligence. In effect, Nelson was the man who decided who would be targeted and would contribute in arranging for those killings to take place. Nelson's handlers were the Force Research Unit, who answered directly to the British Ministry of Defence. On one occasion they actually took a suitcase of information from Nelson and returned it to him colour coded based on who should be a priority target.

Funnily enough, most of the report was prevented from being published by the British government.

You may think that collusion was simply Trevor the cop giving Sammy the UVF man a loan of a rifle; nobody who's remotely familiar with the process will think that however.

The first section of the Stevens report could.easily apply to AGS.

What exactly.is wrong with the FRU deciding on targets? Or during this "war" are you expecting them to play by different rules?

FTA69 · 05-12-2013 3:50pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The first section of the Stevens report could.easily apply to AGS.

What exactly.is wrong with the FRU deciding on targets? Or during this "war" are you expecting them to play by different rules?

Well considering some of the targets were civilians and solicitors Fred, quite a lot I'd say. Secondly, when the British government are collaborating in the murder of their own citizens it undermines their moral highground a small bit.

Lastly, no Republican was ever under any illusion that the Brits wouldn't shoot back. In fact pretty much the first thing you were told upon joining the IRA was to expect either death or jail and to accept those realities before going on active service. People who weren't prepared to do that were rarely admitted.

The main issue Republicans have with the likes of shoot-to-kill and collusion (aside from the obvious immorality of killing civilians to apply pressure) is the sheer hypocrisy of it. On one hand we were told that there was no political conflict in Ireland, simply a criminal law issue which the state was addressing via legal means. In reality, the UK were aggressively practicing a low-level war and using a variety of highly illegal means in which to do that.

The IRA, for all their faults, were pretty up front about who they were and what they were hoping to do. The Brits, on the other hand, practiced internment, shoot-to-kill, collusion and torture and then had the gall to call people criminals and terrorists.

For Reals · 05-12-2013 4:25pm

I would expect collusion to be common place. Any foreign occupying force would expect the local police or security force, made up of the population, to have at least some level of collusion on every side, (as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine etc.).
It must be viewed from the respect of those who view Ireland as a whole, including the occupied counties. That puts it all in a different perspective to those who feel the Gardaí are a foreign police force compared to those who see them as fellow countrymen from the island of Ireland. Those who see the RUC as having done civic duty and those who see them as supporting a foreign regime or simply traitors to their fellow Irishmen.
In a perfect world, its wrong to play between the cracks, but who plays from any ethical rule book 100% of the time? I can list none. It doesn't excuse it, but I don't see any real shock revelation here.

junder · 05-12-2013 5:03pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At what point does turning a blind eye become collusion?

How often was a blind eye turned to a bomb factory,.or a truck full of fertiliser heading to the ferry?

Let's not forget ministers Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney and their expulsion from government for attempting to smuggle arms to the PIRA

Tramps Like Us · 05-12-2013 5:13pm

Harry Breen gave guns to the Glennane gang and colluded with loyalist paramilitaries... forgive me if I don't weep.

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2013 5:50pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Well considering some of the targets were civilians and solicitors Fred, quite a lot I'd say. Secondly, when the British government are collaborating in the murder of their own citizens it undermines their moral highground a small bit.

Lastly, no Republican was ever under any illusion that the Brits wouldn't shoot back. In fact pretty much the first thing you were told upon joining the IRA was to expect either death or jail and to accept those realities before going on active service. People who weren't prepared to do that were rarely admitted.

The main issue Republicans have with the likes of shoot-to-kill and collusion (aside from the obvious immorality of killing civilians to apply pressure) is the sheer hypocrisy of it. On one hand we were told that there was no political conflict in Ireland, simply a criminal law issue which the state was addressing via legal means. In reality, the UK were aggressively practicing a low-level war and using a variety of highly illegal means in which to do that.

The IRA, for all their faults, were pretty up front about who they were and what they were hoping to do. The Brits, on the other hand, practiced internment, shoot-to-kill, collusion and torture and then had the gall to call people criminals and terrorists.

The hypocrisy runs deep FTA and that is what posses me off.

We have had a week of pretty much triumphalism over a panorama programme, yet a week later the same people.are using the typical arrogant "all's fair in love and.war" argument.

People crying foul over a shoot to kill policy, then claiming Loughall was a massacre. People wetting their pants over.a teenager who dies after being struck with a baton round, but claiming children slaughtered while out shopping are unfortunate casualties in a legitimate economic attack.

Can'tseeme · 05-12-2013 5:50pm

Godge wrote: »

Just reading Gerry Adams comments for the first time

"When you have that kind of laissez faire disregard for their own security by An Garda Síochána and the RUC…what happened, happens."

Am I the only one here to be horrified by this?

Does he have a point though? Two high profile RUC men, it was well known that they were on an IRA hit list. Should the RUC and Gardai have upped their security for these men?

If Peter Robinson had asked that question would it have been ok?

Tramps Like Us · 05-12-2013 5:53pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The hypocrisy runs deep FTA and that is what posses me off.

We have had a week of pretty much triumphalism over a panorama programme, yet a week later the same people.are using the typical arrogant "all's fair in love and.war" argument.

People crying foul over a shoot to kill policy, then claiming Loughall was a massacre. People wetting their pants over.a teenager who dies after being struck with a baton round, but claiming children slaughtered while out shopping are unfortunate casualties in a legitimate economic attack.

The difference is that these were RUC men and loyalist colluders who were killed, not innocent people.

The furore about Loughall is that it exposed the hypocrisy of the Brit "its not a war" position. If it was not a war then what they did to their citizens was totally unjustified and illegal. Same with shoot to kill.

Mr.Micro · 05-12-2013 5:59pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

The difference is that these were RUC men and loyalist colluders who were killed, not innocent people.

The furore about Loughall is that it exposed the hypocrisy of the Brit "its not a war" position. If it was not a war then what they did to their citizens was totally unjustified and illegal. Same with shoot to kill.

Sorry, on Vincent Browne last night he just came across as rabid. I am not sure he even blinked, during his rant. He can justify it all he likes, but IRA had no mandate for their actions. Such an man as a TD brings shame on the Oireachteas.

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2013 6:09pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

The difference is that these were RUC men and loyalist colluders who were killed, not innocent people.

The furore about Loughall is that it exposed the hypocrisy of the Brit "its not a war" position. If it was not a war then what they did to their citizens was totally unjustified and illegal. Same with shoot to kill.

How can anyone.claim loughall was anything other than a well executed anti terrorist operation? With one obvious tragic episode.

Tramps Like Us · 05-12-2013 6:25pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can anyone.claim loughall was anything other than a well executed anti terrorist operation? With one obvious tragic episode.

Shooting people after they surrender, then pumping more shots into their prone bodies (as well as murdering innocent people who were just driving along)is not policing of any kind. This is "textbook" according to you? Surely "textbook" is to stop actions like these before they happen, not to sit on that info, let it go ahead, and let a police barracks be blown up and then gun down everyone, innocent or otherwise, in the area? Textbook anti terrorist action? No. Typical of something that happens in a war, yes.

If the IRA were mere criminals as Thatcher liked to say, then they should have been arrested before they did anything and tried, not killed.

I don't expect you to agree but the likes of Jim Lynagh and Pádraig McKearney are worth 10,000 of you or your heroes in the SAS. A tragic loss.

Nodin · 05-12-2013 6:43pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The hypocrisy runs deep FTA and that is what posses me off.

We have had a week of pretty much triumphalism over a panorama programme, yet a week later the same people.are using the typical arrogant "all's fair in love and.war" argument.

.

The panorama programme referred to a group that targeted civilian non-combatants.....

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2013 6:46pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Shooting people after they surrender, then pumping more shots into their prone bodies (as well as murdering innocent people who were just driving along)is not policing of any kind. This is "textbook" according to you? Surely "textbook" is to stop actions like these before they happen, not to sit on that info, let it go ahead, and let a police barracks be blown up and then gun down everyone, innocent or otherwise, in the area? Textbook anti terrorist action? No. Typical of something that happens in a war, yes.

If the IRA were mere criminals as Thatcher liked to say, then they should have been arrested before they did anything and tried, not killed.

I don't expect you to agree but the likes of Jim Lynagh and Pádraig McKearney are worth 10,000 of you or your heroes in the SAS. A tragic loss.

Thank you TLU for proving my point perfectly. I look forward to your explanation of how Warrington was an economic target.

Tramps Like Us · 05-12-2013 6:51pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thank you TLU for proving my point perfectly. I look forward to your explanation of how Warrington was an economic target.

Ok dance around the issue and go into yet more whataboutery. You are a waste of time.

It should never have happened.

My opinion is that after Lynagh and co were killed, and the capture of the Libyan arms meant that a "third phase" of more conventional warfare was impossible, the IRA should have called a ceasefire at that point rather than dragging it out for a few more years.

Lockstep · 05-12-2013 7:00pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

You are a waste of time.

Lay off the personal abuse.

junder · 05-12-2013 7:05pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Shooting people after they surrender, then pumping more shots into their prone bodies (as well as murdering innocent people who were just driving along)is not policing of any kind. This is "textbook" according to you? Surely "textbook" is to stop actions like these before they happen, not to sit on that info, let it go ahead, and let a police barracks be blown up and then gun down everyone, innocent or otherwise, in the area? Textbook anti terrorist action? No. Typical of something that happens in a war, yes.

If the IRA were mere criminals as Thatcher liked to say, then they should have been arrested before they did anything and tried, not killed.

I don't expect you to agree but the likes of Jim Lynagh and Pádraig McKearney are worth 10,000 of you or your heroes in the SAS. A tragic loss.

Odd how that innocent person who just happened to be driving by was dressed in identical overalls to the Ira men, even odder that he has the clothes of the Ira commander in charge of the operation on his back seat. It's ironic that the same people who claim the murder of these two ruc was a justice operation no cry foul at the killing of armed Ira men intent on blowing up a police station

Tramps Like Us · 05-12-2013 7:18pm

junder wrote: »

Odd how that innocent person who just happened to be driving by was dressed in identical overalls to the Ira men, even odder that he has the clothes of the Ira commander in charge of the operation on his back seat. It's ironic that the same people who claim the murder of these two ruc was a justice operation no cry foul at the killing of armed Ira men intent on blowing up a police station

Right so he wasn't innocent according to you? Deserved it?

Even though the Brit govt apologised and gave Anthony Hughes' widow compensation.

Sadly this attitude is not a minority one in the British army, junder in fact is, if anything, more moderate than most (not that that says much) compared to his fellow members of the british armed forces

Dubhlinner · 05-12-2013 7:24pm

junder wrote: »

Odd how that innocent person who just happened to be driving by was dressed in identical overalls to the Ira men, even odder that he has the clothes of the Ira commander in charge of the operation on his back seat. It's ironic that the same people who claim the murder of these two ruc was a justice operation no cry foul at the killing of armed Ira men intent on blowing up a police station

Would be interested in reading more on that - do you have anything to back it up? Not trying to shout you down I just haven't heard this reported before

Sand · 05-12-2013 8:00pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The hypocrisy runs deep FTA and that is what posses me off.

We have had a week of pretty much triumphalism over a panorama programme, yet a week later the same people.are using the typical arrogant "all's fair in love and.war" argument.

People crying foul over a shoot to kill policy, then claiming Loughall was a massacre. People wetting their pants over.a teenager who dies after being struck with a baton round, but claiming children slaughtered while out shopping are unfortunate casualties in a legitimate economic attack.

The Provos are in a desperate struggle to control the past. By any objective analysis, practically nothing of value was accomplished by the Provos campaign that wasn't achieved already by constitutional means. If anything, the Provo campaign delayed and hindered progress.

Their attitude to victims is amazingly hypocritical. Their judgement is formed by who the victim was killed by and if their death can be used to support their campaign. That's it. Hence the hysterical reaction to the Panorama drama which is at best...poorly researched, vs. the dismissive and frankly callous response to actual inquiry findings.

I think the Irish and British governments will have to step in to ensure an objective record of the Troubles is maintained - SF and the Provos will try to airbrush out certain victims, or even smear them as deserving what they got, whilst creating a cult of victim-hood around others.

Karl Stein · 05-12-2013 8:41pm

Sand wrote: »

By any objective analysis, practically nothing of value was accomplished by the Provos campaign that wasn't achieved already by constitutional means.

Like the Union/loyalist collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement? The British government were talking with the IRA all along while denying the political aspect of Republican violence.

The BGOV could have brought the mad dogs of Unionism to heel long before they did and chose not to; the drawing out of the conflict lies squarely at its feet. As was said above the PIRA was a symptom of the disease not the disease itself.

If anything, the Provo campaign delayed and hindered progress.

What incredible experiment have you run to make this call? Or is it just another imaginative claim?

TOMASJ · 05-12-2013 8:41pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can anyone.claim loughall was anything other than a well executed anti terrorist operation? With one obvious tragic episode.

That it was Fred,
Just as Warrenpoint was,

I remember a lot of weeping and pant wetting when 18 paras were executed.

porsche959 · 05-12-2013 8:44pm

FTA69 wrote: »

The IRA, for all their faults, were pretty up front about who they were and what they were hoping to do. The Brits, on the other hand, practiced internment, shoot-to-kill, collusion and torture and then had the gall to call people criminals and terrorists.

The Brits also practiced (and continue to practice - google Elm House, Barnes or Kincora scandal, for example) protecting high level politically connected child abusers, though apparently that's something that can't be discussed here.

K-9 · 05-12-2013 8:46pm

Mod:

We are not turning this thread into "my army was better than yours" type stuff like below:

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I don't expect you to agree but the likes of Jim Lynagh and Pádraig McKearney are worth 10,000 of you or your heroes in the SAS. A tragic loss.

junder wrote: »

Odd how that innocent person who just happened to be driving by was dressed in identical overalls to the Ira men, even odder that he has the clothes of the Ira commander in charge of the operation on his back seat.

I'd expect some type of link to back that up, you must have got that information from somewhere.

BFDCH. · 05-12-2013 8:48pm

I don't think you have quite grasped your Queen’s English; triumphalism, do you think that's the right word?
Outrage that the British army targeted the Irish/Catholic community in the North, that they employed tactics such as drive by shootings and allowed everyone to believe that it was loyalists who had carried out the killings/shootings. This in turn fuelled the sectarian mistrust and helped to escalate the conflict. That they admitted this and had not an ounce of remorse about those murders or the consequences.
If the government, army and police force had of been impartial and there to uphold the law the IRA wouldn't have grown the way it did; if they loyalists were subject to the correct level of censure I doubt they would've had nearly as many members nor killed as many innocents as they did.

TBH, there wasn't much coverage of that panorama episode in the national press; it's obvious that there was large scale collusion between the british government, army, RUC and loyalist paramilitaries, i think the higher level of coverage in the press of this low level collusion is more at the shock that it would happen in the Republic.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The hypocrisy runs deep FTA and that is what posses me off.

We have had a week of pretty much triumphalism over a panorama programme, yet a week later the same people.are using the typical arrogant "all's fair in love and.war" argument.

People crying foul over a shoot to kill policy, then claiming Loughall was a massacre. People wetting their pants over.a teenager who dies after being struck with a baton round, but claiming children slaughtered while out shopping are unfortunate casualties in a legitimate economic attack.

TOMASJ · 05-12-2013 8:54pm

junder wrote: »

Odd how that innocent person who just happened to be driving by was dressed in identical overalls to the Ira men, even odder that he has the clothes of the Ira commander in charge of the operation on his back seat. It's ironic that the same people who claim the murder of these two ruc was a justice operation no cry foul at the killing of armed Ira men intent on blowing up a police station

I would also love to here more on this Junder,

or do you make it up as you go along, the two brothers that were shot that day in Loughgall were presumed dead by the brits,

some time later when the sas had been wisked away for their medals one was found to be alive,

he was lucky those brave guys hadnt noticed before the medical people, or would have got the same bullet to the head while wounded on the ground that several of the IRA men received,from these war criminals.

Niallcw · 05-12-2013 8:55pm

Peoples sending threads about garda collusion with the ira...GROW up open your eyes obviously it happened...why wouldnt it some members of the garda were actually ira members...to be a successful terrorist orgainisation you need your members in all aspects of security forces weather it been the garda,ruc or the british army im sure they had members as far as the white house...

Yaxihy · 05-12-2013 9:25pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Shooting people after they surrender, then pumping more shots into their prone bodies (as well as murdering innocent people who were just driving along)is not policing of any kind. This is "textbook" according to you? Surely "textbook" is to stop actions like these before they happen, not to sit on that info, let it go ahead, and let a police barracks be blown up and then gun down everyone, innocent or otherwise, in the area? Textbook anti terrorist action? No. Typical of something that happens in a war, yes.

If the IRA were mere criminals as Thatcher liked to say, then they should have been arrested before they did anything and tried, not killed.

I don't expect you to agree but the likes of Jim Lynagh and Pádraig McKearney are worth 10,000 of you or your heroes in the SAS. A tragic loss.

Unfortunately the official findings of the PSNI's Historical Enquiries Teams are at odds with your opinion, and it was found that the IRA fired first, making them a legitimate target under any fair rules of engagement, and it was also found that arrest wasn't possible under the circumstances.

Your use of emotive language "pumping more shots" around already untrue statements is a pretty poor way of arguing

TOMASJ · 05-12-2013 9:36pm

Yaxihy wrote: »

Unfortunately the official findings of the PSNI's Historical Enquiries Teams are at odds with your opinion, and it was found that the IRA fired first, making them a legitimate target under any fair rules of engagement, and it was also found that arrest wasn't possible under the circumstances.

Your use of emotive language "pumping more shots" around already untrue statements is a pretty poor way of arguing

If your enemy is wounded and disabled on the floor it is a war crime to kill him/her only one brit soldier "that i am aware of has ever been prosecuted for this crime,

Had he not filmed himself shooting a wounded talaban soilder, he too like hunderds of brit soilders in the north would have got off scot free,
he may well yet as the case has not ended.

Happyman42 · 05-12-2013 9:41pm

Yaxihy wrote: »

Unfortunately the official findings of the PSNI's Historical Enquiries Teams are at odds with your opinion, and it was found that the IRA fired first, making them a legitimate target under any fair rules of engagement, and it was also found that arrest wasn't possible under the circumstances.

Your use of emotive language "pumping more shots" around already untrue statements is a pretty poor way of arguing

They where finished off with a shot entering under the cheekbone and exiting the rear of the head.

One of the RUC guys (closely involved with Loughgall and it's aftermath) was similarly finished.

Yaxihy · 05-12-2013 9:53pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where finished off with a shot entering under the cheekbone and exiting the rear of the head.

One of the RUC guys (closely involved with Loughgall and it's aftermath) was similarly finished.

Without trying to sound smart, you don't go up against the SAS and come away with entrance/exit wounds in the hand or foot. People like that are proficient at head (including cheekbone) shots, and that alone has no indication that they were "executed", as a shot like that could easily have been from quite a distance.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but SAS are trained to shoot to kill, not incapacitate. So in an ambush its more likely you're killed on the first shot, you aren't left lingering for several minutes, and then "finished off" after surrendering as you described. Can't find any autopsy reports etc online, so I guess its all speculative, but in my mind, you wouldn't have survived long enough to have surrendered

Happyman42 · 05-12-2013 10:08pm

Yaxihy wrote: »

Without trying to sound smart, you don't go up against the SAS and come away with entrance/exit wounds in the hand or foot. People like that are proficient at head (including cheekbone) shots, and that alone has no indication that they were "executed", as a shot like that could easily have been from quite a distance.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but SAS are trained to shoot to kill, not incapacitate. So in an ambush its more likely you're killed on the first shot, you aren't left lingering for several minutes, and then "finished off" after surrendering as you described. Can't find any autopsy reports etc online, so I guess its all speculative, but in my mind, you wouldn't have survived long enough to have surrendered

Without going into detail about how I know, unless you walked over and looked down at the gun you couldn't have recieved wounds like that.

And here we go, Miriam O'Callaghan's preamble to Primetime, says....'SF defend the murder of two RUC men, how can they hope to grow the party in the Republic?'

Our 'impartial' national broadcaster does Enda's dirty work again. They don't like it when a party tells the truth about who they are and their support keeps growing. Scary Enda wha?

junder · 05-12-2013 10:20pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Right so he wasn't innocent according to you? Deserved it?

Even though the Brit govt apologised and gave Anthony Hughes' widow compensation.

Sadly this attitude is not a minority one in the British army, junder in fact is, if anything, more moderate than most (not that that says much) compared to his fellow members of the british armed forces

He may have been innocent and there may have been a totally innocent reason for carrying the clothes of the Ira commander on his back seat, and it was a total coincidence that he just happened to be wearing the same overalls as the Ira men

TOMASJ · 05-12-2013 10:33pm

junder wrote: »

He may have been innocent and there may have been a totally innocent reason for carrying the clothes of the Ira commander on his back seat, and it was a total coincidence that he just happened to be wearing the same overalls as the Ira men

Where did you get the info about clothes belonging to an IRA commander in that car, it dosent make sence that a car would drive about with clothes bellonging to one IRA man where 8 were involved,
the boilersuits the IRA wore were over any clothes that the were wearing,

I think you having been listening to to many pub stories about this

Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

Comments